As I mentioned, I work hands-on in my riding of Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert. I have met with and listened to owners of small and medium-sized businesses. In response to my colleague's question, I will share the story of a family-owned grocery store. The store owner told me that the situation had become unbelievable.

He told me that he did not have much cash on hand. Furthermore, his wife had to spend time filling out cumbersome forms in the office, for which she was not even paid. This cut into his business's profits. He said that all levels of government should agree on a single form in order to reduce red tape. I told him that the NDP is listening and would improve the situation.

Mr. Speaker, businesses and young business owners are the key to Canada's economic prosperity. Under the Conservative government, the manufacturing sector is struggling and has lost some of its lustre. A number of manufacturing companies, such as Electrolux, have lost employees and had to shut down.

What measures is the NDP putting forward to support SMEs in the near future and as of 2015?

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to answer that question. I will talk about the NDP's sensible, tangible solutions that will make things better for SMEs.

We want to reinstate the hiring credit for small businesses, cut taxes for SMEs, cap hidden fees for credit card transactions and create a tax credit for hiring and training young people. Better access to credit for SME owners will help those businesses grow. We want to make it easier for parents to transfer family businesses to their children, cut red tape, create tax credits to reduce the toll of payroll taxes and encourage SMEs to innovate.

Mr. Speaker, my interest in this bill is twofold because I am the official opposition's Treasury Board critic and the member for a riding that relies heavily on small and medium-sized businesses to create jobs.

This year I had the tremendous privilege and pleasure of touring several such businesses in municipalities like Chelsea, Wakefield and Shawville. I even toured a number of pharmacies to talk about the drug shortage. It was great to consult with business people in my region. They agree that we need to cut red tape, but not necessarily via the approach in this bill.

As an MP, of course I believe in the principle of red tape reduction, which will reduce administrative hassles for business people. However, as the official opposition's Treasury Board critic, I have serious concerns about this bill. As is often the case with the Conservatives' bills, it seems that their almost religious zeal for defending the free market as they see it at any cost has led them to conceal in this bill their intention to eliminate regulations that protect my constituents' health, safety and environment. In light of the listeriosis crises and the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, we need this government to guarantee that it will do more to protect and regulate Canadians' health and safety.

Regulations that are in the public interest should remain in place. This bill jeopardizes them because it gives the President of the Treasury Board the power to eliminate such regulations under the guise of reducing paperwork for businesses. That is obviously not the way to achieve sound public administration.

It is true that the NDP wants to reduce the administrative burden borne by small businesses, but we do not want to do so at the expense of Canadians' safety. We cannot trust the Conservatives, who have a tendency to deregulate without considering safety, health or the environment.

It is not just a question of managing the number of regulations, but of determining which ones are helping Canadians. This means carrying out a proper study, which is a reasonable approach to public administration.

Only the preamble of the bill states that the regulations affecting the health and safety of Canadians will not be affected. We all know that the legislation that will govern these regulations has no preamble. No mention is made of the environment in the entire bill. If the Conservatives really care about the health and safety of Canadians, why did they not specifically guarantee the application of the bill and the regulations that protect their health and safety?

I would remind my colleagues in the House of some important facts about this government's tendency to let things slide when it comes to the health and safety of Canadians. The Conservatives do not have a good track record in terms of preserving these regulations.

For instance, last year, the Minister of Transport allowed an exemption to the Canadian Aviation Regulations for the air carrier WestJet. WestJet planes will now be able to operate with one flight attendant per 50 passengers rather than according to the standard of one flight attendant per 40 passengers. Other airlines have since asked for similar exemptions. The NDP has asked that the 1:40 rule be maintained, which is reasonable.

In 1999, the Liberals, who are no better, persisted with the Mulroney government's deregulation of rail safety by continuing to implement the safety management systems approach, which was maintained by the Conservatives. This approach leaves it up to the industry itself to ensure that its operations are safe, instead of ensuring that the government works with the industry to set safety standards that should be followed. Basically, it is self-regulation. The goal of any business is to make a profit.

That resulted in many derailments throughout the country.

In addition, the Conservatives used the budget implementation bill, Bill C-4, to make changes to the Canada Labour Code, and those changes will gut the powers of health and safety officers in federal workplaces. It is unacceptable to compromise the health and safety of workers.

It is clear that the Conservative President of the Treasury Board should not be given discretionary powers over our laws and regulations that govern our constituents' health, environment and safety.

It is hard to believe that the Conservatives are sincere about wanting to reduce red tape. They did the exact opposite with the building Canada fund. Instead of helping municipalities and small businesses start infrastructure projects in a timely manner, the Conservatives set up a long and cumbersome bureaucratic process for every project worth more than $100 million. That will create 6- to 18-month delays that will slow down important projects.

They did the same thing with their so-called employment insurance reform, which requires that employers provide more and more information about their employees. In addition, small and medium-sized business are not really getting any help.

For example, the Conservatives are dragging their feet when it comes to taking serious action to regulate anti-competitive credit card fees that merchants must pay to card issuers. If the Conservatives really wanted to help SMEs, they would have supported the NDP's idea to have an ombudsman to control the credit card fees that card issuers charge merchants. It was a simple and reasonable solution, but it was rejected.

This bill cannot be taken seriously. The principle behind it is good, but it is unclear whether it will achieve the expected results.

What we really need to do for small businesses is to identify what does not make sense in the system and eliminate it. That is a simple study. The one-for-one rule is too vague, and there is no guarantee that it is going to work.

We also have to stop giving lip service to small and medium-size businesses and actually help them out, for example, by restoring the small business hiring tax credit for young people; reducing taxes for small businesses specifically, not the corporate tax rate for the largest and most successful businesses in this country; cracking down on hidden credit card transaction fees; and perhaps redefining what a small and medium-size business is for government procurement contracts.

I do not know if members realize this, but small- and medium-size businesses are defined as 500 employees and less. I would approximate that, in my riding, the average number of employees that small and medium-size businesses have is 25. Therefore, it is completely unreasonable to expect a company with 25 employees to compete with the supposed small and medium-size business with 499 employees. It does not make any sense. There is no sensitivity built into the system regarding profit margins, the size of staff, et cetera.

We could talk about the service agreement between merchants and credit card companies that profit small business owners by directly passing on these fees to consumers. This increases the price of goods on everything. Despite dismissing a recent case against Visa and Mastercard, in a rare move, the Competition Tribunal called for a regulatory framework to deal with anti-competitive practices.

We could also create a new tax credit for businesses that hire and train young people, and financing to help small business owners grow their business. We could make it easier for parents to pass family businesses to their kids, create tax credits to offset payroll taxes, and help small businesses innovate, et cetera. In the agricultural sector, we could perhaps do something about risk capital and high interest rates for acquiring new agricultural lands.

It is clear that on this side of the equation, we are proposing sensible, concrete, realistic means of truly helping our small and medium-size businesses to create jobs that are desperately needed in our country.

He mentioned something that struck me. He talked about what we consider to be small and medium-sized businesses. The independent business people that we talk to often say that they hate the fact that the government is not looking at the issue the right way and truly taking small and medium-sized businesses into account when it makes regulations. In Canada, we have a lot of what are referred to as microbusinesses. I want to come back to co-operatives, since I am my party's critic for co-operatives.

We can make the same criticism of the government when it comes to co-operatives. As far as regulations are concerned, the government does not take the co-operatives' needs into account when it is creating programs. The government says that co-operatives are considered when these programs are established, but I think the Conservatives are totally ignoring what the co-operatives really need.

My colleague indicated that a business with 500 employees has the resources to deal with certain regulations, but a microbusiness or a self-employed worker does not have the resources to meet these demands. I would like the hon. member to elaborate on this very astute comment on this shortcoming in the regulations.

Like me, she knows that this country has never had a social democratic government at the federal level. We have had that good fortune provincially, however. In Manitoba, for instance, the tax rate for small and medium-sized businesses is 0%.

It is a balancing act. This government is a friend to big corporations, as were the previous Liberal governments. The wind of change needs to blow through to help small and medium-sized businesses and co-operatives at the federal level. We need to take another look at the system to ensure that there is true competition when it comes to federal procurement contracts. Unfortunately, it is always the same people who win. This government supports big corporate welfare. It is too bad, because the vast majority of jobs in this country are created by small and medium-sized businesses.

Mr. Speaker, I find it unfortunate. Is this what we expected from the Conservatives? The answer is yes. Does this surprise me? The answer is no. We proposed specific solutions to help small and medium-sized businesses. They were reasonable solutions, but they were rejected.

It is hard to understand. I know that there are members on the other side of the House who own small and medium-sized businesses. However, the government has eyes only for big corporations like SNC-Lavalin, the big oil companies and the big farming companies in western Canada. They are what the government cares about most. That means that the government is not prepared to help small and medium-sized businesses become more competitive.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Winnipeg North in his debut speech since noon today.

I do not think the irony will be lost on anyone that this bill would enable the government to craft a set of regulations about regulating regulations. With regard to the statute proposed in Bill C-21, everyone should be very clear there would be no statutory effect. The bill is about a policy. It affects a policy; it creates no statutory effect. I say that because subclause 8(1) of the bill clearly states:

No action or other proceeding may be brought against Her Majesty in right of Canada for anything done or omitted to be done, or for anything purported to be done or omitted to be done, under this Act.

It goes on to say in subclause 8(2):

No regulation is invalid by reason only of a failure to comply with this Act.

There is absolutely no enforcement mechanism. There are no teeth whatsoever behind this bill. What we are doing on the floor of the House of Commons on the very first day of the fall session is debating the creation of a policy, not a statute.

With that as the backdrop, let us talk about what this policy would do.

Its purpose is to reduce the administrative burden on businesses. We know that most regulations on the conduct of normal business will affect businesses, so this is a policy that would affect the regular practice of business. However, it goes beyond that. It would impact things that may not necessarily be front and centre or top of mind with us as parliamentarians.

It would affect the management of fisheries and the environment. It is not just the industry department, the finance department, or the Canada Revenue Agency that this measure would impact. We have to be very clear that it would impact the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and how it regulates the inspection and regulation of food products. It would affect Health Canada with pharmaceutical products and other health products. It would affect the Department of Fisheries and Oceans as to how it manages our coastal and inland fisheries. It would affect a whole range of different departments. It would affect the Department of Natural Resources in the regulation of the mining sector.

With that said, this is a policy that is meant to reduce the number of regulations affecting all departments within the Government of Canada. It is not just the Canada Revenue Agency, the industry department, and a few of what would traditionally be viewed as the more business-oriented departments, because there is no department of the Government of Canada that does not impact the conduct of Canadian business across the board.

In responding to one of my questions, the hon. minister pointed out that 2,300 regulations have already been taken off the books since 2007. Most Canadians and certainly all parliamentarians should know that the catalogue of regulations in Canada is in the tens of thousands. Tomes and tomes of regulations exist.

The idea is to take down one regulation for every regulation that is brought in. It is basically about motivation, about trying to motivate government to do something about red tape.

Here is an equally effective strategy, and perhaps a better one: why not just cull the existing regulations? Here is where this bill falls a bit short. The committee that studies the bill really needs to dig into this aspect. The Government of Canada already has many volumes of regulations on the books, so the presumption of any reasonable and fair-minded Canadian would be that it is going to be tough on the government to bring in a new regulation because it will really have to scratch heads, think hard, and figure out what regulation it is going to eliminate.

We have many tomes of existing regulation that is redundant without being culled. The government could simply pick one and remove it. That would meet the policy requirements that it proposes to enact with this supposed legislation, with this statutory instrument.

That is the key here, so is this really more about a communications exercise? Is it somewhat of a smoke-and-mirrors game for the government to try to look like it is doing something when it really is not doing a whole lot?

Is there merit behind this concept? There is, absolutely. The government is proving that with its own former regulatory red tape commission. The commission took seven years to come up with all of this. It was seven years of bureaucracy, seven years of spending, seven years of studying, and this is what it came up with.

Yes, there is a lot of fat out there. There is a lot of fat in this government. There is a lot of fat that the Conservatives just did not bother to tackle. They have come up with this statutory policy that has no effect whatsoever in law, since there is no liability or consequence to the government for not following its own legislation. It is a bill that regulates regulation.

Here we are debating a policy on the floor of the House of Commons on the very first day that we are back for the fall session, and we have already come to the conclusion that it really does not do a whole lot.

What I also find kind of funny is that I did not want to see this bill in the budget implementation act because budget implementation acts should simply be about budgets, but when we consider all the stuff that went into the Conservative government's implementation act that had nothing to do with the well-being of businesses or the economy, an argument might be made that perhaps this particular legislation might have been able to be folded into the budget implementation act. I would not agree with it, because I think budget implementation acts should be strictly about budgets.

However, that said, this bill was read on the floor of the House of Commons on January 29 of this year. We have not heard a word about it since, and we have actually passed the budget. After seven years of spending on the red tape commission and adding to the bureaucracy, if one is trying to get a signal or cue as to whether or not this is more about a communications exercise to show that this legislation to regulate regulations is a good thing, one need not look any further than that. That is what this is all about today.

What would be the most effective answer in dealing with red tape and government regulations? It would be to go through them one by one and cull any one that does not really have meaning or value. That would be the best and cheapest option, and administratively it would be the simplest and most efficient one. Quite frankly, the government could do it if it wanted to, but now there is this elaborate exercise attached to all of it to posture and create reports and add to the bureaucracy.

Our caucus is looking forward to getting this bill into committee to study some of these issues.

Coming from Newfoundland and Labrador, I will end with something that is very important to me. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans manages our coastal resources and all of our oceans almost exclusively through the use of regulation. If the government is suggesting that for every regulation it brings in it must reduce regulations by one, will government experts and outside experts be allowed into the committee room to analyze whether there might be unforeseen consequences that would actually reduce the ability of the government to do what is in the best interest of Canadians and our resources and our economy and whether this smoke-and-mirrors public relations exercise might actually cause a lot of harm?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from the third party for his speech.

We have to admit that the Liberals were pretty good at using smoke and mirrors. Take for example the issue of climate change. The only practical measure that the Liberals took was to name a dog “Kyoto”. That is their track record.

I would like my colleague to explain the Liberals' decisions with regard to protecting the health and safety of Canadians. During their 13 years in office, the Liberals managed to dismantle the regulatory framework around rail safety by implementing safety management systems in the wake of the Mulroney Conservatives.

Given that the issue of Canadians' health and safety is addressed in the preamble rather than in the body of the bill, there are no real guarantees in this regard.

Can my Liberal colleague show that he is serious about the questions he is asking about this bill, given that his government did not have a very good track record during its 13 years in office?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from the former fourth party made an interesting point. He signals clearly to the Canadian public, and specifically to the House, that if the NDP had its way, it would engage in a massive re-regulation exercise. This is a policy point that the NDP announced during its caucus meeting. It said that it would be announcing its platform in the coming weeks, if not sooner.

We look forward to hearing the NDP's position on exactly which federal entities, which federal agencies, which federal activities it would re-regulate in such a massive way.

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, the member asked why we do not simply get rid of all these regulations. The Liberals contributed to the deregulation in Lac-Mégantic. That happened to us, in Quebec; it did not happen where he lives. That caused such a mess, with such serious consequences.

Regulations are often needed to ensure the safety and protection of the public. Deregulation and special treatment for certain companies can jeopardize public protection.

How does the member plan to get out of this quicksand? Can he tell us how he sees these things?

Mr. Speaker, I take a certain amount of umbrage in the fact that the NDP is already telling us and Canadians that the Liberal Party of Canada is about to form the next government. When we were in that position, the member asked what we would do to certain policies, regulations and statutes. That is a pretty telltale sign of where the NDP is going.

This bill is about eliminating other regulations. What I heard from the New Democratic Party is that it is supporting this legislation. One minute those members are talking about a terrible thing being done, and we all agree there was a terrible tragedy, but they are pairing that with a regulatory system. They are saying that the regulatory system is the ultimate cause that we should be debating, but they are also saying that they support the legislation.

Does anyone else see the irony in all of this? Does anyone else see how ridiculous the New Democratic Party's positioning has been as it desperately tries to get itself out of the quicksand of its polling numbers of recent months?

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I follow the Liberal Party critic. He has hit the nail head-on in addressing this issue.

It is important that we recognize that the current government, probably more than any other government, has its way of putting a Conservative spin on messaging. The member was right on when he made reference to the type of messaging that the government was hoping to achieve here. There is the bill, “red tape reduction act”, that they tie to small businesses, as if the government really wants to do something to assist small businesses in Canada.

All we have to do is look at the last six months or so to see the disaster the government has made for small businesses in one program, the temporary foreign worker program. We see the devastation that has caused. MPs from the Prairies would surely to goodness recognize the damage that has been caused to small businesses because of the government's inability and incompetence in administering one program. It is not a government that has been friendly to small businesses. It is a government that now says it wants to deal with reducing red tape. There is no doubt a great appetite from Canadians to see the reduction of bureaucracy. We all want to see red tape disappear where it can, so the Conservatives understand how important it is to appeal to that sector of society that loves to hear about reducing red tape.

We too believe there is some merit in reducing red tape. We do not necessarily need legislation to mandate the reduction of red tape, as the critic has pointed out. Why not go through a review of the many different thousands of regulations that are in place today and look at ways in which we can reduce red tape and regulation? There is no doubt that we can do a lot in reducing red tape, and we would encourage that where it is feasible to do so. We see that as a positive thing.

However, the Conservatives are saying they are going to reduce red tape, thereby helping small businesses. They are trying to make that connection so they can give the impression they are a friend to small businesses. There are numerous problems within the small business industry and we are not giving it the amount of attention it should receive to help small businesses grow and prosper.

At the end of the day, when we talk about job creation and the importance of the middle class and what we need to be doing in Ottawa to enable our middle class to grow and prosper and have hope again, we should talk, at least in part, about ways in which we can support small businesses. The small businesses, looking forward into the future, are part of the backbone to our Canadian economy. If we want to create and generate jobs, the greatest number of potential jobs that can be created is through our small businesses. We should be looking at what we are doing to help facilitate those job numbers. The government has not done well in private sector, small business types of jobs. It has been negligent on that particular file.

There is a great level of difficulty for small businesses, including everything from registering the name, to looking into setting up a facility, wherever it might be in the country, to registering with Revenue Canada or getting an understanding of employment insurance and the many different benefits that have be paid into.

There is so much more we could do to support our small businesses. Imagine a small business that employs three or four people trying to understand the bureaucracy and regulations. It is more than just federal regulations. There are provincial and municipal regulations as well. It is endless in terms of the types of things we need to see addressed to assist our small businesses to do what they do best, which is to deliver a service, to provide a product, or from my perspective, to create a job. Small businesses across Canada from coast to coast to coast create opportunities and valuable jobs. That should be the focus.

The idea behind this bill is that the government says if it brings in a regulation, it will take away a regulation. As the Liberal Party critic has suggested, there are thousands of pieces of regulations out there that if properly reviewed, could be dealt with.

However, there are other important things with which we should be dealing. What about the idea of closer regulatory alignments with the U.S. in certain areas? The international trade between Canada and the U.S. and the automobile industry is an example. There has been some success, but no doubt there could even be a great deal more, for example, regulating emissions from vehicles. The amount of trade between Canada and the U.S. related to automobiles, parts and so forth is immense. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars. Are there things we could do to improve upon and ensure there is a closer regulatory alignment? I would suggest there is.

We should put more attention in that area as opposed to introducing legislation that is fairly bland, as the critic has pointed out. There is no real teeth to it. It is more of a policy statement. In reality, it is more of a political stand that originated out of the Prime Minister's Office, which is more interested in trying to give a false impression that the government is sympathetic to small businesses. To give that impression, it says that it wants to reduce regulation.

We can reduce regulation and we do not necessarily need legislation to reduce that regulation. We want the government to recognize that we need to do more real, tangible things that would allow for our small businesses from coast to coast to coast the opportunity to grow.

If we see, through budgets, policy and legislation, things that would help or assist, then we would see valuable jobs being created and other economic opportunities and prosperity.

On July 9, as I was travelling as a member of a parliamentary delegation to Israel, we were escorted to a bomb shelter as we toured the Tower of David Museum. Rockets fired from Gaza, by Hamas, were overhead and landing nearby. It was an eye-opening experience for all of us, and it showed us what the people of Jerusalem have to go through on a daily basis to be safe in their own city. It is something that we surely will not forget.

I wish to thank our hosts, David Cooper and J. J. Schneiderman, from the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, and Mark Waldman of the Canadian Jewish Political Affairs Committee, for their hospitality, and for making us feel safe during a very troubling conflict.

Today I want to restate Canada's support for the state of Israel, and I pray that one day the Holy Land will know a permanent and lasting peace.

Mr. Speaker, cycling is an affordable, emission-free mode of transportation that has the added benefit of encouraging physical fitness. Cities that support cycling benefit by reducing vehicle traffic, which improves air quality and eases gridlock, a problem that costs my home city of Toronto an estimated $6 billion a year.

Yesterday, I joined hundreds of Toronto cyclists at Bikestock. It was a ride to city hall to call for improved cycling infrastructure and better safety for cyclists and the motorists with whom they share the road. This is why today I have submitted a motion calling on the federal government to create a cycling infrastructure strategy and a plan to assist regions and communities.

It is time for the government to recognize the many benefits of cycling and to show national leadership. I urge all members to support this motion.

John WestonConservative
West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight the huge and positive impact that cycling has on our environment, our economy, and our health, at every stroke.

I rode last week in the GranFondo, from Vancouver to Whistler, where people like Richard Wooles and Corey Tracey of the B.C. cycling association were on hand with organizer Neil McKinnon.

I was reminded that cycling lowers health care costs and increases revenues from bike tourism. The mayor of Whistler predicted that Whistler would receive $8 million from the fondo.

Cycling brings communities together, like those who gathered together in Ottawa this morning for the Pedal for Kids event. Sponsored by Canadian Tire Jumpstart Charities, Pedal for Kids is an annual five-day fundraiser in which participants cover 500 kilometres on bikes, from Ottawa to Quebec City. Its purpose is to encourage kids to get active in sport.

Encouraging Canadians to get more active is one of the reasons that Canada Bikes and I expanded Bike Day on the Hill last May to become Bike Day in Canada. It is an attempt to increase the profile of cycling as a national agenda issue.

Mr. Speaker, this past summer, the world of swimming lost a true giant. It was in Pointe-Claire, Quebec, for over three decades, at what was Canada's first indoor Olympic-sized pool, that George Gate, as head coach and then aquatics director, built the city's swim team into the powerhouse it remains to this day.

It is testimony to his unique gift as a coach and mentor that in addition to his success with swimmers, George built Pointe-Claire's diving program into one of the sport's finest.

George's vision was comprehensive, communitarian, and inclusive. He focused not only on elite athletes, but also promoted the benefits of aquatics for other aspects of life. He was a pioneer in water safety, lessons for novice swimmers and the disabled, and fitness for the elderly and those in rehabilitation.

As a citizen of the world, George was a decorated war veteran who saw action with the British Royal Navy in the north Atlantic, the Pacific, and in the British convoys to Russia.

I ask all members of the House to join me in expressing our heartfelt condolences to George's daughters, Brenda and Diane, and sons, Bill and Richard.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal leader theorizes that the only way to keep marijuana out of the hands of children is to legalize it and regulate it.

Let us look at a highly regulated substance: alcohol. CAMH says that over 25% of our youth in grades 7 through 12 are binge drinkers, as are over 40% aged 20 to 24. Approximately 8% will become addicted to alcohol. Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death among 15- to 20-year-olds, with alcohol being a factor in half of those deaths.

How is regulation really working for our youth? Canadians are supposed to believe that if the Liberals sold marijuana in stores, drug dealers would experience an epiphany, obey the regulations, throw in the towel, and stop selling dope.

In addition to their leader, “the pied piper of pot”, pro-marijuana Liberals include the “cannabis queen”, Jodie Emery, a Liberal nomination candidate in Vancouver East, and Liberal Party CFO, Chuck Rifici, who made millions selling his shares in his medical marijuana company.

Liberals want to be the party party. Unfortunately, they do not seem to care that legalizing marijuana would be abandoning the health and welfare of Canadian youth.

Mr. Speaker, this Saturday, my south shore colleagues and I led a day of action regarding the future of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

I would like to commend the support shown by my constituents, especially the many volunteers who came out despite the cold and the rain. I am very proud of the Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert riding's record. We gathered over 700 signatures.

This shows that Canadians care about our public broadcaster and they are prepared to take action to save it from the budget cuts imposed by the Conservative government.

We love the CBC and we will continue to defend it against attacks from the Conservative government.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I note the visit to our capital today by two Australian visitors, Elizabeth and Peter Bardos, who are hosted by two wise residents of Orléans, Fran and Michael Rushton.

Mr. Bardos is a dedicated public servant, who has spent his entire career making life better for his fellow countrymen, having worked for the Liberal Party of Australia and a number of members of Parliament of that great country down under.

Those close to Mr. Bardos have described him as a champion of democracy. Canada and Australia have for many decades enjoyed a friendly and highly productive relationship, one that is very special to this country, Canada.

We had the opportunity to witness the quality of our relationship with Australia during the visit to Canada by Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott last June.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank colleagues on both sides of this House for the kind words and prayers during my recent medical bout with cancer. I would also like to thank the physicians and staff of the Odette Cancer Centre of Toronto's Sunnybrook Hospital.

I am very grateful for a positive outcome, but I am grateful as well for insight provided by medical professionals on a crucial matter of public health.

Colleagues will recall that while vaccination programs are a primary responsibility of the provinces, our government provided funding in the 2007 budget for a national vaccination program to immunize adolescent girls against the human papillomavirus, HPV. My doctors advise that the program should now be extended to cover boys, that otherwise we can expect a spike in the incidence of HPV cancers in men in coming decades.

I am delighted to report that the Minister of Health has told me that she will take this matter under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on our first day back in Parliament to extend our warmest wishes to our beloved House of Commons Clerk, Ms. Audrey O'Brien, who is recovering from emergency surgery.

It is so familiar to see Audrey sitting at the table in her robes, always on the alert for what is taking place in this chamber, where the unexpected is to be expected.

The clerk's incredible professionalism, expertise, guidance, not to mention her wry sense of humour, are hallmarks of our Parliament. Audrey serves her office and parliamentarians with distinction, honour, and dedication. She is a rare breed, and we are fortunate that she is our senior House officer.

We also offer support and thanks to the acting Clerk, Mr. Marc Bosc, and will endeavour to give him as little grief as possible, something that will no doubt be broken by day's end.

On behalf of my fellow New Democrats and our leader, and I am sure all members of Parliament, we wish Audrey a speedy and full recovery.

We have just one little bit of advice: “Stay off watching QP. We do not want to add to your stress”.

Mr. Speaker, today is the first day of the new sitting, and on this side of the House, we are excited to be back.

We are looking forward to the year ahead, and for good reason. It is because on this side of the House we are choosing to do more for Canadian families; choosing to keep Canada strong and principled in a dark and dangerous world; choosing to reduce deficit, cut taxes, and balance the budget; choosing to put honest, law-abiding citizens and victims ahead of criminals. We choose to take a strong stand in the world based on our values.

This is why we have lowered taxes for families and job-creating businesses. It is why we have cut the GST, introduced the tax-free savings account, created the universal child care benefit, and established income splitting for our pensioners. We will continue to work hard for all Canadian families.